Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    June 4, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT

6:00 pm
for discussionarry review filed by the adjacent number, 201008231962 which proposes to construct an addition and two story deck and spiral stair at the rear of an existing single family dwelling. this project is at 472 connecticut between 19th and 20th street. commissioners, the 80-square foot addition would not extend beyond the existing rear wall or the spiral sfare well would exist beyond the existing wall. the new deck will be set back three feet north of the property line. the addition would be within the required rear yard. the variance, case number 2008 .0689d was granted on august 132010. on february 10, 2011, the residential design team reviewed
6:01 pm
the project in response to the january 14, 2011 request for general review. commissioners, the e.i.t. believes the request for review does not demonstrate the project containinged creates any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances and such is warranted a abbreviated discretionary review. the various plans indicate the same material will be used for the windows and railings as indicated and they indicate the use for the same material as indicated in the building permit application and the height does not appear to have any unusual effect on the privacy of any terlt spaces irrespective of material selection. this project would not be referred to the commission if this project does not contain or create any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. staff recommendation is to know take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. i would act to add since delivery of the case report to you, staff received two letters
6:02 pm
in support of the proposed scope and building permit application in question. i can distribute these to you at your request if you would like. this concludes plintation and i am available to answer any questions. thank you president olague: thank you. d.r. considerer. -- requester. the other mic. >> thank you. president olague and fellow commissioners, thank you for takeing the time to listen to the matter. i would like to ask how much time we have to speak. president olague: you have five minutes. >> thank you. my name is tom and my wife and i live next door at 472 connecticut streetment our home has been in our family since the 1920's. i have lived in our home since i was 12 years old and my wife and i have lived there together for 23 years.
6:03 pm
our home is downhill from our neighbor segues at 472 connecticut street. if you look at the current photo, here is our home and here is our neighbor's house. the existing deck is here. the deck has always had a solid railing. proposed deck railing is two feet, 10 1/2 inches from our property line. the next photo shows a current view from our home looking at the deck and the railing shows how close it is to our existing rear yard facing windows and our deck next door. the reason we're request discretionary review we're asking to variance from approval of the 2010. here's the varauns drawing from that meeth and as you can see, solid railing is depicted. slide doorg cannot be seen
6:04 pm
through the deck railing. we attended the hearing and actually spoke in support of the neighbor's variance because it was our understanding the railing would remain solid. i also stated we were in support as long as the plans were not changed. we realize that everyone in the city has close neighbors but we had told our knaber from day one that the solid decoratings were important to our privacy. this was communicated verbally and in our letters to the city. in june 2010 we met with mr. gway on his deck and he said the only changes he was making was dump out his house to the portion of the deg and add a spiral staircase. we supported this based on the meeting and variance drawing that showed the railing as solid. we believed the issue with the rating had been settled. in december 2010, the city sent a site from the drawings.
6:05 pm
these drawings now noted glass railings but with the north base facing railings still showing opaque. here on the overhead is a copy of that drawing. the drawing shows the deck railing two different ways. the west railing is transparent and the north is opaque. that is why we thought we were getting a solid railing. on december 31, our neighbor notified us his plan to have transtransparent glass on the north railing even though that was not what's depicted on either of the sets of drawings that we received from the city. since filing for the discretionary review, we have tried to get to a compromise solution with our neighbor. at his request, we even provided alternative railing design suggestions. both of these plans keep a portion of the railing frosted, closest to our home, to lilt views down and into our home. our neighbor has rejected both
6:06 pm
compromised designs. in conclusion, we did not oppose original variance design because the neighbor's drawings show the deck railing as solid. the residential design guideline section on privacy in cases like this ask for solid railings. we respectfully ask you to take discretionary review and to ask the neighbor to construct the railing for either the various decision or our compliance solution. thank you all of you for your time. president olague: thank you. are there speerkers in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor. >> hello, president olague and members of the commission. thank you very much for taking the time. my name is jerry gway. i live at 472 and 474 connecticut street between 19th
6:07 pm
and 20th. just my wife and daughter and i both live there and during the past several years since 2002, we have been working with our neighbors, primarily tom and robin, to facilitate improving the design and layout of our home. additionally, our goal has always gone preclude any negative impact to our neighbors while adding value to our home as well as knabed in in general. we have a great deal of time, finances and energy invested throughout these years in the planned improvements and planned on retiring there and raising our family. most recently, mid-2008, 2009, we proposed a vertical addition as a result of our daughter's birth and it created more need for living space. the current design of our home is effectively a one bedroom with no functional living area. it's one of those 150 old vic torrian -- vic toran sort of
6:08 pm
dysfunctional layout out. at that point they retained the services of their architect to advise them on this proposal and help request a discretionary review. additionally robin indicated in an e-mail dated june 10, 2008, that she has a degree in architecture and regularly reviews plans. so we figured with two sets of trained architectural eyes that we were comfortable with any and all plans being presented would be clearly understood by the binellis. in june 2010 we made a decision to scale down the project with the continued services of our architect, richards. the revised plans created a functional living space for our larger family by partially enclosing the existing rear deck there would be approximately a three football connie at the north elevation that will extend approximately five feet west to allow access to a spiral
6:09 pm
stairway for safe egress to the rear yard. after the binellis and architect reviewed the revised and properly submitted plan, they supported the project at the variance hearing. the variance was approved and we felt everyone was comfortable and it made sense to move forward with the additional time and expense of building permit process. note that the plans clearly did show railings as being clear glass, illustrated the same as adjacent windows when you look at the plans. two different architects had a chance to -- several months to review these plans. on december 20th, i received a call from robin indicating she had a problem with the north balcony railing being glass. at that point i told her i would like to work out a solution that might make her more comfortable and would revisit the previously approved design with my architect upon his return from vacation. after reviewing the design with my architect, i notified the
6:10 pm
binellis that glass was the best option for clean and attract iffer design as approved. i was surprised after nearly five months, time to review the notice and notice the glass railing, this was not an issue. but still indicated that i would work with them towards a compromise that would increase their privacy while not damaging the approved design too much. on december 28 through the 13, through january 13, i continued to -- i offered them the option of frosting a portion of railing and e-mailed them on january 10 to that subject. on the 14th, they were still not open to compromise and filed for the d.r. i continued to follow up with phone calls on march 7 i e-mailed binellis proposing i frost the lower 30% northeast railing section, the one relevant to their house. i e-mailed -- on march 12 i
6:11 pm
e-mailed the response to the proposal which still included 100% frosting of that railing section immediately parallel to our new proposed living area. note that any landing extension west of the existing structure is not relevant as it lies in a direct view line west away from our properties. i e-mailed additional response to the binellis be they -- and they still indicated 33% was not acceptable and they did not come back with any alternative. when they referenced a different project that was postponed solely at our discretion, it has in their objection to this plan, geven, that's not relevant the previous plan. the plan submitted for this current project indicated glass railings were approved. president olague: thank you. thanks. are there speakers in support of the project sponsor? dd seeing none, d.r. requester,
6:12 pm
you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm the architect. i was asked to look that the for the neighbor's plans. the first a much larger project that didn't go through. they did not -- they did not retain me, however, to look at the variance drawings. they felt they could read them accurately. and, again, on the overhead -- sorry. this was the drawing that the binellis received from the planning department showing a solid railing. essentially and very briefly, the request is really about the process of plans approval and whether a project sponsor can make changes to a project after
6:13 pm
a variance is approved. and come back with a different shrine or slightly different design. again, this is not a huge item in terms of the architectural aspect of the project. the binellis are not opposed to the variance. in all of the history of their work with the neighbors in trying to reach a compromise, they have been strictly asking for this solid railing for some privacy. so again briefly, they're just asking you to take a d.r. and go back and look at the original variance drawings and look at the original design and go back and approve that. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor, you have two minutes for rebuttal. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm ashton richards, jerry's architect.
6:14 pm
and what i would like to address arrow one, which would be sitting on the landing, standing on the landing of jerry's proposed project facing the neighbors facade. and the point i would like to make is at that site angle, when you're looking at is the inside frame of the windows and their backyard. essentially two black strips of glass. it's very difficult to see into their -- into their -- into their house. but -- but you can. and that's because the railing is at waist height. the material, the railing is inconsequential at that point.
6:15 pm
when you get back into the project, it's almost impossible to see into their house, if not impossible. so the material doesn't make any difference whether it's solid glass or opaque. and that's my primary point. >> i just wanted to add to that when you are standing within the proposed new living area, standing up and attempting to look directly into the neighbor's property and/or backyard, the angle is so sharp and so steep, that it's virtually impossible to see. and there's only one window that's impacted, which is the southwest window on the second level of the binellis home, which is currently a framed-in stairwell area with an adjacent wall. the stairs go down to the garage area. even if you were standing directly in front of it -- president olague: thank you. public hearing is closed.
6:16 pm
commissioners? commissioner sugaya:? >> i have a glass rail question for staff. does this fall in any way into our, you know, bird whatever, we have been considering? bird strike legislation and considerations and all of that stuff? >> i think generally we would discourage actual glass railing s, well, just to back up, that bird safety guide line, i think that's coming to you in a couple of weeks, it talks -- the research has shown that the biggest problem is when you have glass buildings or glass railings that are near a large open space or body of water. but in general i think the commission has asked us not to use black railings when there's an option. and so i think we typically wanted to use pickets or something when you wanted transparency but as an alternative to glass.
6:17 pm
president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: my questions are very much along the lines of commissioner sugaya, that we really want to move away from glass as kind of a context chull friendly material. glass is really not a substitute for properly designed balcony railing. i think whatever the department already commented on is what i would support and that is anything from flats to property spaceed -- pickets, whatever, rails, pickets, whatever, would be the recommendation here. so glass is really something we do not want to do. had the department specifically recommended a choice of alternatives?
6:18 pm
>> for this particular project, new york city because it's an abbreviated d.r. and it's not considered exceptional or extraordinary. however, if you wish to propose an option, we would -- president olague: take d.r. and propose additional materials if you would like. commissioner moore: then we would do that and make a recommendation on the proper teement of the balcony railing. >> would you propose, i believe slab set 33% visibility or no or just solid? what is your pleasure? commissioner sugaya: no, i had a totally different question. commissioner moore: since we don't have a real photograph of the building, it's a little harder to do. i suggest the architect who works for the department to fimed the proper and acceptable solution to that. president olague: commissioner, did you have something to add?
6:19 pm
commissioner borden: no. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: was there a second? second. >> hi a peripheral question. in terms of the various itself, does the var ounce really address the -- variance really address the type of materials and whatnot on the balcony and that type of thing? >> well, generally the variance plans would show materials and in this case there seems to be some sort of misperception of what was shown and how it was interpreted. but it wasn't a condition of approval or anything in that sense. so we wouldn't address it unless it was significantly a condition of approval. commissioner borden: i am glad you mention thad for the benefit of the public because i think it's important to be clear here. there's an exceptional issue to our policy relating to grass railings and trying to make it bird safe and neighbors perception of what they actually saw in the plans. and i think we want to make it clear to the public, this d.r., the way that the presented by
6:20 pm
the d.r. requester doesn't rise to the level of extraordinary. there's a separate policy issue about treatments of exterior buildings related to glass but separate and apart from what this d.r. requester mentioned and this is not something that should rise to the occasion of being a d.r. in that regard and sounds like the privacy issue have concern will -- won't be resolved rashedless of what the outcome is of this hearing. so i just wanted to kind of, you know, parcel that out to make sure the people are clear on what is kind of appropriate for d.r. and what is not. and then what -- when we're having a policy discussion about a larger policy that could result in a d.v. that has not as torch do with what the d.r. requester is talking about. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: just in response to that, however, it did come to us as a d.r. so i think staff should take that into consideration.
6:21 pm
at least i would like to have staff take that into consideration. president olague: commissioner moore? >> commissioner sugaya: the amount of owe passty. commissioner moore: they do not general lindh themselves to discussion here. we have more expressive submittals we could comment in any way so i leave it up to you guys to do that. >> ok. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is take d.r. and approve the project with staff continuing to work with project sponsor on the material for the railing. on that motion, commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> no. commissioner moore? commissioner miguel? >> no. >> and commissioner olague? >> aye. >> the mission passed 4-2 with. thank you, commissioner. you are now on item number 15,
6:22 pm
case number 2011.2065d for 3139 mission street. >> good afternoon, commissioners diego sanchez, department staff. i present a case to establish a medical cannabis dispensary doing business as herbal mission as 3139 mission street. while no physical expansion sprow posed for the structure, the addition of a retail coffee store in front of the existing structure is also included in the proposal. retail coffee store of approximately 360 square feet while wil have a distinct entry from the proposed 1700 square foot medical cannabis dispensary. commissioners, the m.c.d. will sell medical cannabis and medical cannabis food stuffs. will not allow on site smoking or vaporizing. they will grow minor amount of medical cannabis on site and offer delivery service and allow
6:23 pm
those due to lack of access and cannot enter the m.c.d. they will have an indoor coffee store with retail seating and plans to further enhance a pedestrian experience on mission street at the subject property. this expansion to the original scope of the project, which was simply the m.c.d., is being done as part of and as the express outcome of the outreach efforts community groups. the department believes this will add to the vitality of the mission street. in response to a telephone call from the san francisco police department about safety, the project sponsor is adding a secure plan to the operation of the proposed m.c.d. the security plan includes multiple indoor and outdoor and security guard at the entrance of the m.c.d. project sponsor has represented to staff he contacted the san francisco police department requesting input regarding the proposed security plan. regarding the proximity in your packet, it does show a child development center within a
6:24 pm
thousand foot radius of the subject property. however, planning code section 79141 exclude daze care facilities and other like uses that are not primary or secondary educational institutions. the distinction is in accord to the board of supervisor ordinance or legislation rather, ordinance 275-05, amending the planning code to regulate m.c.d.'s. the plan departments received multiple telephone calls and letters regarding this project. those in opposition to the project are concerned about, one, proximity of the proposed project to other uses in the community including an employment training center and other existing medical cannabis dispensaries doing business as bernal heights collectives, day care center and nearby residential uses. there's also concern about the added crime and loitering the proposed project could bring to the area. those in support site the extensive outreach effort conducted by the project sponsor, his willingness to address concerns of the community. in particular and has mentioned project sponsor agreed to significantly alter the existing
6:25 pm
mission street furnished to inincorporate rate store frofpblet and his willingness to minimize on-site vaporizing and close no later than 9:00 p.m. the project sponsor also secured the support of a number of other member citizens of the area include business owners, operators and residents along mission street and supervisor david campos. staff recommendation is not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. the recommendation is based on the following -- the m.c.d. applies to all of the standards of the planning code including all proximity restrictions and advances the objectives of the policy, objective and policy of the jern plan. proposed project includes addition of a retail coffee store. the store front alterations will add to the existing commercial character of the area in the 3100 block of commission street providing individuals are a positive presence on the street. the project will jen rit between 15 to 20 full time and part-time
6:26 pm
employment opportunities. there will be no smoking on site or vaporizing on site. the 3100 block is well served by transit, including 14 and 1449 l including the line next will have stops in the front and reasonable walking distances. to minimize the impact on the commercial area, the sponsor agreed to the following conditions -- daily sweeping and lit pick up and pressure steam cleaning of the main entrance and sidewalk abutting the project, division of prorte odor control dwoiment prevent any significant noshes odors escaping premises and closed area will be provided. i would like to make a recollection to the staff report under the environmental review section. would i like to mend that section saying this is categorically except as a class one or class three project. this concludes my presentation and i am available to answer questions. thank you. president olague: thank you. project sponsor?
6:27 pm
>> good yoof noon, commissioners. i'm the project sponsor. just to give you a brief resume of myself, i'm a doctor of chiropractic and for the past nine years worked as an administrator for a large health care facility here in san francisco supervising over 40 health care professionals. together we provide care to over 300 patients monthly. i work on a daily basis with frail, disabled, mentally ill and cancer-stricken patients and i truly understand end stage life decisions and what the true meaning of compassionate care really means. as i work to keep people out of nursing homes and hospice care. here at mission herbal care, inc., our goal is not simply to open a pot club but safe health care facility providing low-cost health care services to our members and incorporate compassionate care to go along with their health care needs, which include chiropractic care,
6:28 pm
physical therapy, occupational they were yes, group therapy with licensed clinical social workers and other whole list tick treatments. for the past several years i have seen the effect of end stage life, chronic pain and illness and can affect people and their families. i wanted to start working with people on a more holistic approach to help people deal with this issue. i have long been interested in medical cannabis and have seen the benefits to patients. several years ago i began looking for the right location to purchase to provide individuals with the best possible holistic care. i located the property at 3139 mission street, which for the past three or four years has been a vacant building. i felt this would be a good location due to the fact the building at one time was a medical facility. it's proximity to hospitals, it's center of the city location and easy access to public transportation and freeways to provide delivery for those immobile patients. before proceeding with the project, we did extensive search of the neighborhood based on the
6:29 pm
san francisco m.c.d. ordinance to make sure there was no sensitive uses within the property location that would prohibit an m.c.d. from opening. after doing our extensive search, we did not find any primary or secondary schools or any other prohibited uses located within the 1,000 feet. we did have questions regarding childcare facilities and addressed them in our letter of determination to the zoning administrate are and planning department. i am referencing san francisco m.c.d. ordinance under section 795.508, which defines assembly and social service views, paragraphs following b through e, not referenced by section 790.141 define childcare, educational service, religious facility, residential care indicating none of these uses are prohibitive. after addressing these concerns, zoning administrator issued a ruling for the subject property stating that the property located at 3139 mission street seemed eligible as an m.c.d. location. at that time we felt comfortable